On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:53:32PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > And no one discusses any details, so it is not known what you would like > the "streamlined submission process" to look like. Eric Raymond discussed it eloquently a few months ago and I also stated it in my first email today: the absence of a more automated process. At least that's _my_ own take on it. > system. Packagers might find that filling in bugzilla forms is an extra > burden. Some might want to upload their packages into an /incoming FTP > directory and be done. But actually, too many submitted packages either Again, Eric already explained that Bugzilla forces packagers/developers to enter data that is already available to a simple shell script. Plus, it can get awkward if you need to submit one of those programs that rely on a bunch of Perl modules (and, in turn, the latter's dependencies). I'll admit that some of the trouble is more imaginary than real: five minutes spent copying, pasting and double-checking can easily seem like an eternity, when it's actually a mere five minutes... but why waste them, if it can be avoided? Here's Eric's page on his proposed solution: http://www.catb.org/~esr/fedora-submit/ > team would be overloaded with failed build attempts (there is no automated > build system yet) or many package bugs would enter the repository. This brings back the need for, I think, tools like mach. Should mach be part of FC? Should it be sanctioned as a required tool for packagers? On the other hand, should the inclusion and endorsement, perhaps, be postponed until mach can be made to use yum rather than apt-rpm? Documentation is good, but having the tools available out of the box further reduces any inertia (mine included). -- Rudi
